dagblog - Comments for "More Damned Emails"

Facts are useful. Now that we

Flavius — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 13:43:58 +0000

Facts are useful. Now that we know the content of the DNC emails we can decide for ourselves what to think.

If we knew the contents of the 103 "reckless" classified emails Comey found on Hillary's server, ditto. I'm not implying that I think they were all as innocuous as the DNC ones just that until I have facts to the contrary I'll continue to think that some non trivial % of them were.

misspelling corrected

Assange openly admits that

rmrd0000 — Wed, 27 Jul 2016 01:42:29 +0000

In reply to More Damned Emails

Assange openly admits that the email leaks were timed to damage Hillary Clinton. Foreigners have declared that they have the right to influence our Presidential election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/assange-timed-wikileaks-re...

When was the DNC ever

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 26 Jul 2016 04:55:32 +0000

In reply to I may have been the

When was the DNC ever studiously neutral? Its job is to herd cats and is often neutered itself by the powers that be. Obama largely made it irrelevant. I'm sympathetic the the idea that DWS especially blew it by not putting in a communications chief for a half year, but too much has been laid at her feet.

It's not obvious to me that

ocean-kat — Tue, 26 Jul 2016 04:50:02 +0000

In reply to I may have been the

It's not obvious to me that the emails have anything to do with Sanders supporters booing Sanders. Sych and his allies didn't start posting nonsense and conspiracy theories after the emails came out. They've been there all the time. Faced with that backdrop we can't know how much or how little effect the emails had.

Blow's editorial blows.

moat — Tue, 26 Jul 2016 01:14:21 +0000

In reply to More Damned Emails

Blow's editorial blows.
The title has nothing to do with the article.
The assumption that Clinton is untrustworthy is stated as a forgone conclusion. It is just another hit job done by somebody with their own agenda.
I prefer the straight up challenges that claim this candidate is unworthy. This is mere mealy mouth passive aggression served with a flair of authority.

I may have been the

HSG — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 20:55:55 +0000

In reply to I acknowledge my. lack of

I may have been the staunchest Bernie supporter at this site, although I'm obviously not the biggest Hillary ~~hater~~ disliker. That said, I think your point is mostly valid CVille despite your preference for Clinton throughout the primaries. The emails released don't strike me as particularly scandalous, but obviously many other Bernie backers disagree. I mean they booed Bernie today when he asked them to support Hillary. Still the DNC failed in its duty to remain studiously neutral in all its correspondence and DWS put her thumb on Hillary's side of the scale on a number of occasions. The blowback we're seeing now should have been anticipated.

I acknowledge my. lack of

CVille Dem — Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:19:55 +0000

In reply to More Damned Emails

I acknowledge my. lack of objectivity here, but seriously...the reason this has any legs at all is because Democrats always cave on stuff like this. Bernie Sanders never changed his political affiliation in the Senate. He has made many derogatory statements about the Democratic Party, the DNC, and many people. I am unable to be shocked that DWS and others simply don't like him; that they personally preferred a Democrat. She got suggestions to question his faith, but she didn't. She called him a liar and gave an example of a lie. So what? Those comments would never have seen the light of day if a felonious attack on DNC emails had not occurred. The things that Bernie et al objected to were present in the rules before he decided to use the Democratic data base (both his and Hillary's BTW) because he knew he wouldn't get any traction an an Inependent.

I believe that someone (not HILLARY or DWS), like Warren for example, should simply say:

What the emails actually show is that the DNC put their personal preferences aside and acted objectively towards both candidates. It is not shocking that political people liked one candidate more than another. Yes, there were opinions expressed, but none of the criticisms were used against Sanders. The rules that were deemed to favor HILLARY were in place before Bernie decided to run, and that is the objective truth. If anyone can show that it isn't, please let me know. This whole thing is overblown and way past its sell-by date.